Why do MEPs increasingly often negotiate with the states behind closed doors before even voting in plenary? A look at the hows and whys of trilogues.

How it works: Trilogue

The rating agencies have to be more  transparent in Europe. It was about time.

the Member States and MEPs have finally  reached an agreement in trilogue.

The discussions between the states,  MEPs, and the European Commission.

the MEPs have tried to save time  by negotiating directly with the states,

even before voting in plenary session.  -What's the problem?

Some MEPs think the problem  with trilogues

is that it all happens behind closed doors.

Some feel they don't get to have their say.

it means that the large political groups  have accepted it by a majority.

Look at this. I asked two MEPs  what they think of it.

Why do we do it?  For reasons of efficiency.

In the field of the committee  which I am a member of -

we work on financial regulation -  I think things were urgent.

So the advantage of the first reading  is that we save a year or 18 months.

With a first reading trilogue, negotiations  happen before any parliamentary vote.

It annoys me that the rapporteur and  the shadow rapporteurs are the only ones

who determine the point of view  of the European Parliament

without there being  any voting in plenary session.

At some point you have to decide.  The decision can't be made

with 750 MEPs on one side  and 27 states on the other.

The rapporteur is there  to defend the text adopted

in committee or in plenary  and not to defend their own ideas.

It's undemocratic, because in first reading  only three or four shadow rapporteurs,

one rapporteur and the chair of  the committee do the negotiations,

and the plenary can merely  say yes or no to the result.

It's not a 'take it or leave it'. You take it  if you want the trilogue to be productive.

But it's quite possible that the team  negotiating for the Parliament

because it hasn't obtained  what appeared to be essential.

Sorry, but I still don't understand.  Is there a vote or not

In the end in November 2012  the rules changed.

As MEPs have asked,  the way trilogues are organised

You need to be clearer.  -I'll start again.

MEPs hadn't necessarily all given  their agreement to start discussions.

Now the MEPs  on a parliamentary committee

must first give their opinion.  -And is that all?

Now, when the states and MEPs  are very close to agreement,

they are now obliged  to send to all MEPs concerned

a complete document  translated into their language.

That can certainly help.  -And when the subject is very important,

there can even be a big debate  in the Hemicycle

before the agreement is confirmed  in trilogue. Still following?

But tell me,  who takes part in these trilogues?

On the Parliament side, you have  the chair of the parliamentary committee,

plus the rapporteur  in charge of the dossier

and you also have  the other six shadow rapporteurs

representing the other political groups  in the EP.

Facing them you have  the representatives of the states

and one representative  from the European Commission.

But who decides how far they can go  in the negotiations?

Now the Parliament's negotiating team  is given a specific mandate

or the negotiators receive  a series of priorities.

Hang on. So, if I've understood it right,

all political groups are represented,  and when there's a compromise,

the information is sent quickly to the  other MEPs. So it's better than before,

even if it's still behind closed doors.  -That's right.

Tell me, could it be improved even more?

Some experts are proposing  radical changes,